I will go further than that by saying: Science does not care who has the best sounding “definition”, what most matters to science is which is the most useful theoretical “model” to use

giggles, on what basis do scientists measure "most useful"?

is anyone using your model to explain anything?

ANYTHING?

if not, do you concede that it is not useful at all?

This theory by example explains what a theory is, how they work with hypothesis, and boil down to an all important model, by having a real life "theory" to develop that (where those are properly working) on its own goes all over science.

We left off at the last page with another way-original hypothesis that now has me thinking of ways to show a square (number of guess bits per cycle being constant would make it come out that way) with circle to show how many were in/out, while leading to one outcome or another that some will adopt and others will not.

Being able to so easily connect the model in such surprising ways is an indicator that the scientific method is here working 100% like it should. In the way living things work the model/theory is something already in science that's incredible valuable to explain the features of. Whenever you go off into an area where the theory exists in science, a hypothesis can can be said to go there too that helps make it show up real good. After compiling the data of an experiment its here proven one way or another, is not even expected to somehow graduate to theory. It's forever just another one of many hypotheses, tested along the way, as we go from one to the next depending on where you send discussion towards.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You keep posting that chart. Do you think it has any relationship to reality at all?

He English, at home, in forums sciency, to all intended who, view, not unrationally escaped from, comma, factories, there, to, write the sentences also for those again reading.

That time it was just so none have to search the thread or the theory to find where it says "Balwin Effect", along with all else that goes with it. It's just a versatile illustration. Better that than needing a dozen different ones then another with all those.

This theory requires ability to conceptualize the ICA working. I make that easier by showing where something I am explaining is, in the illustration. Others who have not seen it as many times as you would more likely not recall that being there, have no clue what I'm talking about.

In this case the ICA illustration is just for convenience sake, so you'll have no problem picturing the whole thing in your mind. It is not an outside of theory concept such as Monte Carlo (where being more expert in it does not help the model/theory) the Baldwin Effect is there for good reason (and being more expert in it does help the model/theory).

Now that the IA circuit is on the page showing eye and such, for theory with multiple dimensions like String Theory (assuming 1 bit Data and Address bus even though likely need more) I would predict the circuit needs to look something like this:

I will go further than that by saying: Science does not care who has the best sounding “definition”, what most matters to science is which is the most useful theoretical “model” to use

giggles, on what basis do scientists measure "most useful"?

is anyone using your model to explain anything?

ANYTHING?

if not, do you concede that it is not useful at all?

This theory by example explains what a theory is, how they work with hypothesis, and boil down to an all important model, by having a real life "theory" to develop that (where those are properly working) on its own goes all over science.

We left off at the last page with another way-original hypothesis that now has me thinking of ways to show a square (number of guess bits per cycle being constant would make it come out that way) with circle to show how many were in/out, while leading to one outcome or another that some will adopt and others will not.

Being able to so easily connect the model in such surprising ways is an indicator that the scientific method is here working 100% like it should. In the way living things work the model/theory is something already in science that's incredible valuable to explain the features of. Whenever you go off into an area where the theory exists in science, a hypothesis can can be said to go there too that helps make it show up real good. After compiling the data of an experiment its here proven one way or another, is not even expected to somehow graduate to theory. It's forever just another one of many hypotheses, tested along the way, as we go from one to the next depending on where you send discussion towards.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I think he's confusing "simulation" with "model". In some fields the two words may be synonymous, but in science they aren't the same thing. The described program produces simulations, but it isn't a model in the scientific sense of that word; rather, if it works as advertised, it provides a way of simulating the models that science already has. Now, if he'd just tone down the hype, and advertise his simulator as what it appears from his comments that it is, then he might start seeing some level of interest in it.

I remember as a young boy in the town where I grew up they had something called a ship models tank and it was used to thest models of big ships to see if the design was viable and seaworhthy and I presume it did much for the Norwegian merchant navy that among other things were instrumental in beating the Nazis in WW2 by creating the world's largest shipping company called Nortraship, consisting of most of the Norwegian ships - ships out on the seven seas, that was ordered not to return to Norway after the Nazis occupied the country and very few if any returned until the war was over and what was left of our ships after having been subjected to German submarine warfare against the convoys - both the transantlantic as well as the convoys to Murmansk with all the American war equipment to help the Russians win their war against the common enemy.

Oil and fuel to keep the British RAF airborne and survive until the USA got drawn into the war, and so on an on. In short, those small models maybe did something that was good for the war effort. The Nazis were not all that far from winning the war, every link in the chain was indispensable.

I won't go into the details of how the Norwegian government shamelessly backed from their promise to renumerate the brave sailors, suffering years of convoy traffic with Jerry hunters all around, being torpedoed twice or more, with part of their pay going into a fund - "the secret Nortraship fund" for pensions or susteinance after the war.

I'v seen them, the miserable, alcoholic wrecks, forgotten(?) by their own country. They saved us, and what did they get?

So that's what models do, be they a computerized model simulation or a real, scaled down and built model of the real thing - thiy simulate the real thing to make it possible for us to test the real thing by proxy as it were or something like that. Got it, Gary?

It's just more of the usual science-stoppers, from the usual crowd. Sad...

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I remember as a young boy in the town where I grew up they had something called a ship models tank and it was used to thest models of big ships to see if the design was viable and seaworhthy and I presume it did much for the Norwegian merchant navy that among other things were instrumental in beating the Nazis in WW2 by creating the world's largest shipping company called Nortraship, consisting of most of the Norwegian ships - ships out on the seven seas, that was ordered not to return to Norway after the Nazis occupied the country and very few if any returned until the war was over and what was left of our ships after having been subjected to German submarine warfare against the convoys - both the transantlantic as well as the convoys to Murmansk with all the American war equipment to help the Russians win their war against the common enemy.

Oil and fuel to keep the British RAF airborne and survive until the USA got drawn into the war, and so on an on. In short, those small models maybe did something that was good for the war effort. The Nazis were not all that far from winning the war, every link in the chain was indispensable.

I won't go into the details of how the Norwegian government shamelessly backed from their promise to renumerate the brave sailors, suffering years of convoy traffic with Jerry hunters all around, being torpedoed twice or more, with part of their pay going into a fund - "the secret Nortraship fund" for pensions or susteinance after the war.

I'v seen them, the miserable, alcoholic wrecks, forgotten(?) by their own country. They saved us, and what did they get?

So that's what models do, be they a computerized model simulation or a real, scaled down and built model of the real thing - thiy simulate the real thing to make it possible for us to test the real thing by proxy as it were or something like that. Got it, Gary?

I am mean this morning.

The only Norwegian I know could be described as miserable, if not alcoholic.... but I think it really was the 3 marriages that caused that, which given half a chance he would blame on most goverments of the world....oh and the fanatical support for whale hunting.....not to mention the fjords of course.

And I'll posts it and say "This show you're wrong" whenever I see your guff. Unbiased onlookers, If you like my comprehensive refutation above, please feel free to give it 1 - 5 stars as a rating. If I get enough 5 stars (maybe like 4) the mods here can perhaps give me an award, which I'll make into a banner and then troll it around various fora like it means something.

It's just more of the usual science-stoppers, from the usual crowd. Sad...

Red brick go the house now.

"People called Romans they go the house?"

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The sure fire refutation of the year! Richthughes has done it again. You will not see a better argument this award season. 5 stars!!!

The biggest Dumb-Down Department imbecile has to win. It would otherwise become too obvious that the real problem is your dysfunctional science education.

For the record, what does Panda’s Thumb have to say about how the human eye works?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I assume you meant how it evolved, now how it works. Every third grader on the planet knows how the eye works. Hopefully, you're not that stupid, although I'm not holding my breath.

I specifically need to know how the human (or vertebrate) eye works, especially how the photons are collected and other resolution related details.

It is there. But since what I found indicates a serious problem (also a separation of church and state issue) I thought I would let you find where that is mentioned, just in case I missed the very important self-correction which should be there by now.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I assume you meant how it evolved, now how it works. Every third grader on the planet knows how the eye works. Hopefully, you're not that stupid, although I'm not holding my breath.

I specifically need to know how the human (or vertebrate) eye works, especially how the photons are collected and other resolution related details.

It is there. But since what I found indicates a serious problem (also a separation of church and state issue) I thought I would let you find where that is mentioned, just in case I missed the very important self-correction which should be there by now.

Find a third-grader and ask them.

Quit bugging us with stupid third-grade questions. This has already been done:

That moist, slightly granular depression in the ground is the spot where the dead horse has been pummeled into a relatively smooth paste.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad